p.7 #1 · Diffusion Filters! (or Effect Filters in general)
The first was shot with the Tiffen Pearlescent 1/2 and 35GM. I absolutely think that it made a positive difference in the rendering of the sun rays and the overall smoothness in the highlights.
p.7 #2 · Diffusion Filters! (or Effect Filters in general)
Has anyone ever tried using a "fog" style filter for lowered contrast landscape photography? I can hardly find any examples whatsoever online of lower contrast/fog style filters.
p.7 #3 · Diffusion Filters! (or Effect Filters in general)
highdesertmesa wrote:
If you take a lens that is near perfect wide open like the RF 50 1.2, the BPM 1/4 doesn’t make it look more vintage or even less sharp, IMO. The effect I like is the bokeh smoothing and general atmosphere change of the image. There is also something about it that seems to increase the perceived saturation of color when used in gold hour lighting.
I have been meaning to try the BPM 1/4 on the Q2M, but haven’t gotten around to it yet. I especially want to try it in combination with the red filter to see if it makes the images look even more like infrared film by adding a slight glow to the brightest tones.
The filter HelenaN is using is cool because it gives the effect of using a single-coated or uncoated lens. I think the Tiffen Black Pro Mist effect is a little different....Show more →
p.7 #4 · Diffusion Filters! (or Effect Filters in general)
robsonj wrote:
Did you ever try this filter combo on the q2m ?
No, and I've since traded the Q2M for an M10M, which was a mistake. The M10M sensor bifurcation issue reported by Lloyd Chambers is real, plus the IQ in my option was lesser than the Q2M, even with an APO lens on the M10M. The Q2M with the extra resolution plus a fixed-lens design is unparalleled. I exchanged the M10M for a 28 Summilux + refund, and I may get the Q2M again down the road.
I do have the regular Q2, and this evening I tried the BPM 1/4. I took a shot inside the house with and without it at close distance, and the change in bokeh was remarkable. It looked like I went from f/1.7 to f/1.2 with the filter added. I'm going to leave the filter on for a while and test it out.
SOOC jpegs using the Q2's in-camera Monochrome High Contrast setting:
p.7 #5 · Diffusion Filters! (or Effect Filters in general)
Fred Miranda wrote:
The FE 35mm f/1.4 GM and 35/2 DG DN are great candidates for the BPM 1/4 filter. It reduces the super high contrast while softening the highlights slightly. Images are still screaming sharp but have a softer fall-out...
I just realized the BPM 1/4 I use on the Q2 is the same filter size as both CV APOs
p.7 #6 · Diffusion Filters! (or Effect Filters in general)
highdesertmesa wrote:
No, and I've since traded the Q2M for an M10M, which was a mistake. The M10M sensor bifurcation issue reported by Lloyd Chambers is real, plus the IQ in my option was lesser than the Q2M, even with an APO lens on the M10M. The Q2M with the extra resolution plus a fixed-lens design is unparalleled. I exchanged the M10M for a 28 Summilux + refund, and I may get the Q2M again down the road.
I do have the regular Q2, and this evening I tried the BPM 1/4. I took a shot inside the house with and without it at close distance, and the change in bokeh was remarkable. It looked like I went from f/1.7 to f/1.2 with the filter added. I'm going to leave the filter on for a while and test it out.
SOOC jpegs using the Q2's in-camera Monochrome High Contrast setting:
p.7 #7 · Diffusion Filters! (or Effect Filters in general)
highdesertmesa wrote:
No, and I've since traded the Q2M for an M10M, which was a mistake. The M10M sensor bifurcation issue reported by Lloyd Chambers is real, plus the IQ in my option was lesser than the Q2M, even with an APO lens on the M10M. The Q2M with the extra resolution plus a fixed-lens design is unparalleled. I exchanged the M10M for a 28 Summilux + refund, and I may get the Q2M again down the road.
I do have the regular Q2, and this evening I tried the BPM 1/4. I took a shot inside the house with and without it at close distance, and the change in bokeh was remarkable. It looked like I went from f/1.7 to f/1.2 with the filter added. I'm going to leave the filter on for a while and test it out.
SOOC jpegs using the Q2's in-camera Monochrome High Contrast setting:...Show more →
The BPM makes rendering quite pleasant imo, especially when there are light sources in the background. It does not really rob any resolution, just a bit of contrast.
p.7 #8 · Diffusion Filters! (or Effect Filters in general)
Fred Miranda wrote:
The BPM makes rendering quite pleasant imo, especially when there are light sources in the background. It does not really rob any resolution, just a bit of contrast.
I find it softens and blends lights and highlights in a lovely way too—and it diffuses axial CA at times in an appreciable way.
@highdesertmesa What’s the issue with the M10m over the Q2M?
p.7 #9 · Diffusion Filters! (or Effect Filters in general)
highdesertmesa wrote:
No, and I've since traded the Q2M for an M10M, which was a mistake. The M10M sensor bifurcation issue reported by Lloyd Chambers is real, plus the IQ in my option was lesser than the Q2M, even with an APO lens on the M10M. The Q2M with the extra resolution plus a fixed-lens design is unparalleled. I exchanged the M10M for a 28 Summilux + refund, and I may get the Q2M again down the road.
I do have the regular Q2, and this evening I tried the BPM 1/4. I took a shot inside the house with and without it at close distance, and the change in bokeh was remarkable. It looked like I went from f/1.7 to f/1.2 with the filter added. I'm going to leave the filter on for a while and test it out.
SOOC jpegs using the Q2's in-camera Monochrome High Contrast setting:
p.7 #10 · Diffusion Filters! (or Effect Filters in general)
Fred Miranda wrote:
The BPM makes rendering quite pleasant imo, especially when there are light sources in the background. It does not really rob any resolution, just a bit of contrast.
This was exactly my reason for asking Fred, I was wondering what it did for the transition of specular highlights and blow areas of little interest in the background, especially when shooting with the monochrom where the highlight latitude is very fine and you have some blow areas behind the main subject etc
p.7 #12 · Diffusion Filters! (or Effect Filters in general)
Fred Miranda wrote:
How do you like the Leica 28 Lux? Can you post some samples with the subject at mid-distance? TIA.
So far I like it, but haven’t fully tested it out. Some initial random thoughts: It’s sharper to the corners at infinity focus than I thought it would be. Vignetting wide open is pleasant. Sharpness wide open is stunning. 0.7m MFD on a wide angle feels stifling, and I will have to get used to it not being a Q/Q2.
Sure thing on the samples. What do you consider mid-distance? Just want to make sure since I once called focusing halfway between MFD and the horizon mid-distance was taken to task Wide open?
Yes, and there is a thread on Leica Forum with others who have the issue. Some do not have the issue. Basically the minute I pushed contrast in post a vertical line would appear in the top center of the frame (fading out before reaching the center of the frame). The sensor is stitched together along that line in manufacturing, and something is getting screwed up along the way — maybe a voltage error, who knows. But the end result is a very slight difference in exposure from one side of the frame to the other that only shows at the top. Leica’s response to one person with the issue was it was normal if pushing the contrast in post (and gave the above manufacturing explanation) — which to me is BS because monochrome sensors need a lot to contrast added to emulate some popular high-contrast film/paper combinations. Not everyone intends to use a monochrome camera just for shooting low-contrast street photography! AND — the Q2M does not have the same issue, so clearly Leica needs to address the issue, IMO.
Jul 04, 2021 at 09:50 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #14 · Diffusion Filters! (or Effect Filters in general)
highdesertmesa wrote:
Yes, and there is a thread on Leica Forum with others who have the issue. Some do not have the issue. Basically the minute I pushed contrast in post a vertical line would appear in the top center of the frame (fading out before reaching the center of the frame). The sensor is stitched together along that line in manufacturing, and something is getting screwed up along the way — maybe a voltage error, who knows. But the end result is a very slight difference in exposure from one side of the frame to the other that only shows at the top. Leica’s response to one person with the issue was it was normal if pushing the contrast in post (and gave the above manufacturing explanation) — which to me is BS because monochrome sensors need a lot to contrast added to emulate some popular high-contrast film/paper combinations. Not everyone intends to use a monochrome camera just for shooting low-contrast street photography! AND — the Q2M does not have the same issue, so clearly Leica needs to address the issue, IMO....Show more →
Well, if the Q2M doesn't have the issue that is likely good news because you can bet the Q2M sensor is made in a similar way. it suggests the problem is a lot more fixable than having to make the sensor differently.
p.7 #15 · Diffusion Filters! (or Effect Filters in general)
highdesertmesa wrote:
So far I like it, but haven’t fully tested it out. Some initial random thoughts: It’s sharper to the corners at infinity focus than I thought it would be. Vignetting wide open is pleasant. Sharpness wide open is stunning. 0.7m MFD on a wide angle feels stifling, and I will have to get used to it not being a Q/Q2.
Sure thing on the samples. What do you consider mid-distance? Just want to make sure since I once called focusing halfway between MFD and the horizon mid-distance was taken to task Wide open?
After 2 meters. I have seen some samples (Flickr, reviews) and found rendering a bit busy when the transition zone is apparent in the background (mid-distance). I see noticeable outlining and moderate optical vignetting. No doubt the lens is sharp. I feel it renders closer to the APO lenses (but with axial CA) than the 50/1.4 lux.
Just curious on your thoughts.
p.7 #16 · Diffusion Filters! (or Effect Filters in general)
Fred Miranda wrote:
After 2 meters. I have seen some samples (Flickr, reviews) and found rendering a bit busy when the transition zone is apparent in the background (mid-distance). I see noticeable outlining and moderate optical vignetting. No doubt the lens is sharp. I feel it renders closer to the APO lenses (but with axial CA) than the 50/1.4 lux.
Just curious on your thoughts.
Will do. I’ve seen/heard the same online. It’s a love/hate (or love/meh) lens. I have a feeling most people that love it are shooting it wide open at close distance and stopped down at infinity. So many lenses do not excel at mid-distance wide open, I have to wonder if it’s not in the design intent for Leica and others. I always think to myself when I see someone post a good mid-distance rendering that it must be a happy accident on the part of the manufacturer
p.7 #17 · Diffusion Filters! (or Effect Filters in general)
Steve Spencer wrote:
Well, if the Q2M doesn't have the issue that is likely good news because you can bet the Q2M sensor is made in a similar way. it suggests the problem is a lot more fixable than having to make the sensor differently.
Getting Leica to acknowledge it as a issue and be willing to correct it in firmware will be difficult enough. But my fear is this is hardware related since some M10M users report theirs do not show the issue even with massive adjustments to contrast/dehaze/clarity in post. The M10M/M10-R sensors are derived from the S3 medium format sensor design, but the Q2/Q2M/SL2 were designed directly for 35mm. But still — the fact that some M10M show the issue and some don’t — and that the manufacture dates between the good and bad ones are intermingled points more toward a lapse in quality control or inconsistency in the manufacturing process.
Jul 04, 2021 at 11:49 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #18 · Diffusion Filters! (or Effect Filters in general)
highdesertmesa wrote:
Getting Leica to acknowledge it as a issue and be willing to correct it in firmware will be difficult enough. But my fear is this is hardware related since some M10M users report theirs do not show the issue even with massive adjustments to contrast/dehaze/clarity in post. The M10M/M10-R sensors are derived from the S3 medium format sensor design, but the Q2/Q2M/SL2 were designed directly for 35mm. But still — the fact that some M10M show the issue and some don’t — and that the manufacture dates between the good and bad ones are intermingled points more toward a lapse in quality control or inconsistency in the manufacturing process....Show more →
If Leica stitches together two smaller sensors to make their 35mm sensors, then I would expect they do that with all their sensors. If you stitch the sensor in that way, sometimes the difference in the two halves will be bigger and sometimes it will be smaller. If that is how they intended to build the sensor, we are just going to have to live with this issue or buy from a company that doesn't build sensors in this way. It should be something that can be handled with post processing. Ideally that would be built in, but if not one ought to be able to handle it for each individual image.
p.7 #19 · Diffusion Filters! (or Effect Filters in general)
Steve Spencer wrote:
If Leica stitches together two smaller sensors to make their 35mm sensors, then I would expect they do that with all their sensors. If you stitch the sensor in that way, sometimes the difference in the two halves will be bigger and sometimes it will be smaller. If that is how they intended to build the sensor, we are just going to have to live with this issue or buy from a company that doesn't build sensors in this way. It should be something that can be handled with post processing. Ideally that would be built in, but if not one ought to be able to handle it for each individual image....Show more →
It’s extremely difficult to correct the issue manually in post since you have to have pixel perfect alignment of the mask on the vertical axis and then match the gradient correction perfectly as well. I’m also not sure if the gradient is uniform or ramped. If it’s ramped/non-uniform, then matching it exactly would be almost impossible. And any correction in post has to be done in PS versus LR/C1 due to the complexity of the the masking required. For most of us, an artifact like this when it shows up ruins the image. It’s not as much of an issue those who don’t increase contrast in post and/or don’t have large uniform areas near the top of the frame. But for landscapes with a lot of empty sky, it can be a huge issue.
Jul 04, 2021 at 12:33 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #20 · Diffusion Filters! (or Effect Filters in general)
highdesertmesa wrote:
It’s extremely difficult to correct the issue manually in post since you have to have pixel perfect alignment of the mask on the vertical axis and then match the gradient correction perfectly as well. I’m also not sure if the gradient is uniform or ramped. If it’s ramped/non-uniform, then matching it exactly would be almost impossible. And any correction in post has to be done in PS versus LR/C1 due to the complexity of the the masking required. For most of us, an artifact like this when it shows up ruins the image. It’s not as much of an issue those who don’t increase contrast in post and/or don’t have large uniform areas near the top of the frame. But for landscapes with a lot of empty sky, it can be a huge issue....Show more →
As long as it isn't ramped, it would actually be really easy to fix. I am not really all that good at post-processing and I am pretty sure I could do this in about a minute per image. Even if it is ramped the key is getting rid of the border, which should be easy to do. Regardless of if it is ramped I can't see why it couldn't be fixed in camera easily. I suspect Leica will have a firmware fix soon. It really is no more of serious issue that OSPDAF banding with Sony sensors or artifacts from Sony's lossy compression. The banding for OSPDAF could be mostly but not totally addressed with firmware and the solution to lossy compression was of course lossless compression. I don't see this issue as any more consequential or difficult to fix than these earlier issues.
Wide open?